• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran isn’t providing needed access or information, nuclear watchdog says

Fearandloathing said:
And Iran has shown such a willingness to co-operate with inspectors and obey the rules.
Click to expand...

Inspections would be one part of a broader verification regime. Moreover, the fact that Iran has yet to resolve two core issues brought forward by the IAEA, even during the diplomatic process, undercuts the notion that one should accept Iran's word on good faith.
 
Fearandloathing said:
There's always an Obama bot at the outset to make a wild claim about how it's a lie
Click to expand...
Im not an "Obama bot"

......and not one citation.
Click to expand...
Excuse me. I had my number wrong. There was not 7 areas with the PMD's it was 5 areas, and Iran has completed the 3 of the 5 actions. There still remains 2 areas.
"Iran has completed three of five actions it pledged to take as part of its cooperation with the IAEA’s investigation into past military actions."
IAEA Report Shows Iran’s Nuclear Program Remains Frozen |


Do you seriously expect anyone to believe you after six years of this kind of vacuous bull****?
Click to expand...
Well its not bull****...

Even if true, two areas are outstanding so it is NOT a lie until Iran turns over everything requested....which we are certain they will do because now that Obama and Kerry are dealing with them, they have become nice people who don't hate America anymore...all that "Death to America" is like an old habit...they can't help themselves, they really are kind and gentle and care deeply when they are slaughtering your family in front of your eyes and always apply balm to the burn wounds they leave when torturing.
Click to expand...
Iran is slaughtering my family in front of my eyes? :shock:
 
donsutherland1 said:
Inspections would be one part of a broader verification regime. Moreover, the fact that Iran has yet to resolve two core issues brought forward by the IAEA, even during the diplomatic process, undercuts the notion that one should accept Iran's word on good faith.
Click to expand...

Who has advocated accepting anybody's word on good faith. How many times have the Obama administration reiterated that any agreement will have a dual premise, Iran will be denied the construction of nuclear weapons, and a rigorous inspection program will continuously monitor and ensure that end.
 
washunut said:
You have to understand that the U.S. will accept ANYTHING at this point to prove Obama can make a deal. So long as the media feeds the public the administration line that it is this deal or war, the public will choose this deal.

Do you or anyone on this board really believe that Obama/ Kerry would lose a minute's sleep over the fact that Iran has a bomb?
Click to expand...

If some of the recent news reports are accurate, there does seem to be an element of political expediency that is driving the U.S. position. IMO, a viable agreement must contain, in addition to a robust verification mechanism, terms that preclude Iran from "enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development." That was one of the key conditions set forth in UN Security Council Resolution 1696. To do less would be to open the door for the kind of illicit nuclear activities an agreement is supposed to preclude. Only nuclear activities that would be for "exclusively peaceful purposes" would be permitted. My guess, from earlier and recent news reports concerning the diplomacy, is that the Security Council's terms related to enrichment and R&D are likely to be relaxed.
 
Montecresto said:
Who has advocated accepting anybody's word on good faith. How many times have the Obama administration reiterated that any agreement will have a dual premise, Iran will be denied the construction of nuclear weapons, and a rigorous inspection program will continuously monitor and ensure that end.
Click to expand...

I'm making a theoretical point. We'll learn more when the terms of a framework agreement are released. Ambiguous, highly general, and non-concrete terms, particularly the absence of the UN Security Council's central component with regard to enrichment, reprocessing, and R&D or a strong verification mechanism (more than inspections) would indicate a willingness among at least some within the P5+1 to allow for such accommodation. I reserve judgment on the actual matter of whether too much faith has been placed on the assumption of Iranian compliance until there is a framework agreement and its terms are released. For now, mine is a theoretical point.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I'm making a theoretical point. We'll learn more when the terms of a framework agreement are released. Ambiguous, highly general, and non-concrete terms, particularly the absence of the UN Security Council's central component with regard to enrichment, reprocessing, and R&D or a strong verification mechanism (more than inspections) would indicate a willingness among at least some within the P5+1 to allow for such accommodation. I reserve judgment on the actual matter of whether too much faith has been placed on the assumption of Iranian compliance until there is a framework agreement and its terms are released. For now, mine is a theoretical point.
Click to expand...

On that we would agree. But I was responding to your assertion that this administration might take Iran's word for something on good faith. My mortgage company and I have a vastly better relationship then does the US and Iran, and still, they didn't take my word on good faith that I would make my mortgage payments. It's really a ridiculous argument that the UNSC would take anything from Iran based on faith.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Inspections would be one part of a broader verification regime. Moreover, the fact that Iran has yet to resolve two core issues brought forward by the IAEA, even during the diplomatic process, undercuts the notion that one should accept Iran's word on good faith.
Click to expand...

Oh, please post the details on that...and answer the question of how they will be enforced..

war?
 
donsutherland1 said:
If some of the recent news reports are accurate, there does seem to be an element of political expediency that is driving the U.S. position. IMO, a viable agreement must contain, in addition to a robust verification mechanism, terms that preclude Iran from "enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development." That was one of the key conditions set forth in UN Security Council Resolution 1696. To do less would be to open the door for the kind of illicit nuclear activities an agreement is supposed to preclude. Only nuclear activities that would be for "exclusively peaceful purposes" would be permitted. My guess, from earlier and recent news reports concerning the diplomacy, is that the Security Council's terms related to enrichment and R&D are likely to be relaxed.
Click to expand...

Obama has pretty much told everyone it does not matter what you or anyone else feels is a good deal. He and Kerry will accept whatever Iran tells them is their bottom line. Time has run out, the deal needs to be done this week.

You need to face the reality is that Obama does not care what you think. He has done a masterful job of insuring that the left will do his bidding.

Makes some lifelong democrats feel like they have been left in the desert.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Oh, please post the details on that...and answer the question of how they will be enforced..

war?
Click to expand...

A credible verification regime would require more than inspections. Whether or not the agreement being negotiated will have such a mechanism remains to be seen. As there still is no framework agreement, the details are not available.

Enforcement is a separate matter from verification. The U.S., like any other sovereign state, has a full range of military and non-military possibilities that it could use for enforcement purposes. The choice of enforcement options would depend on various factors. If a military response becomes necessary, there is nothing that would preclude the U.S. or U.S. and allies from destroying Iran's known nuclear facilities. The much publicized rumors from 2010 of a so-called "point of no return" by which military action could no longer be undertaken against Iran's nuclear facilities was incorrect. It also had no basis in the Laws of War. At the time, proponents of that hypothesis assumed Israel or the U.S. needed to strike Iran prior to August 21, 2010. Neither Israel nor any other country ever bought such a notion.

In any case, a military option remains open, as Iran's military power has not expanded to the point where such an option would become too costly to pursue. Therefore, time remains available to pursue a non-military approach. A lack of Iranian willingness to meet the IAEA's and UN Security Council's requirements would reduce the range of non-military options and bring about a more serious discussion of possible military ones.
 
washunut said:
Obama has pretty much told everyone it does not matter what you or anyone else feels is a good deal. He and Kerry will accept whatever Iran tells them is their bottom line. Time has run out, the deal needs to be done this week.

You need to face the reality is that Obama does not care what you think. He has done a masterful job of insuring that the left will do his bidding.

Makes some lifelong democrats feel like they have been left in the desert.
Click to expand...

I agree we need the framework deal before the end of March. I also believe that it must be concrete and specific. It must meet the terms set forth by the IAEA and UN Security Council and must contain a robust verification mechanism. Otherwise, it will be clear that Iran has not made the fundamental commitments that are required to bring it into compliance with the IAEA's and UN Security Council's requirements.

I share concerns that political expediency may be pushing things toward a vague and relatively hollow arrangement. As I've stated before, without a credible framework deal, Congress should act. If Iran was not willing to meet its obligations after two prior extensions of deadline, there's little reason to believe Iran would suddenly change course over the next three months to reach a credible agreement. Moreover, the remaining three months were supposed to be about finalizing details, preparing the annexes, etc., to transform the framework agreement spelling out the major terms into a final agreement.

A non-substantive framework agreement won't mask the absence of agreement on the core issues, even as some might try to package it as a breakthrough. Without such agreement, the June deadline would be hit, and then the P5+1 would then be confronted with the choice of granting another extension with the hope that Iran will become flexible or reaching the firm conclusion that Iran is not prepared or willing to meet its international obligations. Moreover, the P5+1 would probably face a lot of pressure to grant the extension, at a minimum to sustain a narrative that progress is being made, even as fundamental issues remain unresolved. Therefore, I favor Congress's increasing U.S. sanctions against Iran, and adopting other measures aimed at undercutting its nuclear activities, if a credible framework agreement is not in place by the end of this month.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I agree we need the framework deal before the end of March. I also believe that it must be concrete and specific. It must meet the terms set forth by the IAEA and UN Security Council and must contain a robust verification mechanism. Otherwise, it will be clear that Iran has not made the fundamental commitments that are required to bring it into compliance with the IAEA's and UN Security Council's requirements.

I share concerns that political expediency may be pushing things toward a vague and relatively hollow arrangement. As I've stated before, without a credible framework deal, Congress should act. If Iran was not willing to meet its obligations after two prior extensions of deadline, there's little reason to believe Iran would suddenly change course over the next three months to reach a credible agreement. Moreover, the remaining three months were supposed to be about finalizing details, preparing the annexes, etc., to transform the framework agreement spelling out the major terms into a final agreement.

A non-substantive framework agreement won't mask the absence of agreement on the core issues, even as some might try to package it as a breakthrough. Without such agreement, the June deadline would be hit, and then the P5+1 would then be confronted with the choice of granting another extension with the hope that Iran will become flexible or reaching the firm conclusion that Iran is not prepared or willing to meet its international obligations. Moreover, the P5+1 would probably face a lot of pressure to grant the extension, at a minimum to sustain a narrative that progress is being made, even as fundamental issues remain unresolved. Therefore, I favor Congress's increasing U.S. sanctions against Iran, and adopting other measures aimed at undercutting its nuclear activities, if a credible framework agreement is not in place by the end of this month.
Click to expand...

France has argued that the deadline date is being treated more importantly than the contents of the agreement, and would accept relaxing that date. Don't know that their right or not. The right, which had no problem telling the French to **** off when they pointed out that Colin Powell's presentation was unconvincing, and that if the US attacked Iraq without a consensus, it would be a victory for the might makes right meme, suddenly finds France completely relevant on this subject. A completely transparent case of partisan dung.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I agree we need the framework deal before the end of March. I also believe that it must be concrete and specific. It must meet the terms set forth by the IAEA and UN Security Council and must contain a robust verification mechanism. Otherwise, it will be clear that Iran has not made the fundamental commitments that are required to bring it into compliance with the IAEA's and UN Security Council's requirements.

I share concerns that political expediency may be pushing things toward a vague and relatively hollow arrangement. As I've stated before, without a credible framework deal, Congress should act. If Iran was not willing to meet its obligations after two prior extensions of deadline, there's little reason to believe Iran would suddenly change course over the next three months to reach a credible agreement. Moreover, the remaining three months were supposed to be about finalizing details, preparing the annexes, etc., to transform the framework agreement spelling out the major terms into a final agreement.

A non-substantive framework agreement won't mask the absence of agreement on the core issues, even as some might try to package it as a breakthrough. Without such agreement, the June deadline would be hit, and then the P5+1 would then be confronted with the choice of granting another extension with the hope that Iran will become flexible or reaching the firm conclusion that Iran is not prepared or willing to meet its international obligations. Moreover, the P5+1 would probably face a lot of pressure to grant the extension, at a minimum to sustain a narrative that progress is being made, even as fundamental issues remain unresolved. Therefore, I favor Congress's increasing U.S. sanctions against Iran, and adopting other measures aimed at undercutting its nuclear activities, if a credible framework agreement is not in place by the end of this month.
Click to expand...

It's easy to get lost in all the details of these negotiations, but any agreement that is reached means nothing unless backed by the willingness of the United States to use military force should Iran reneg on it. Trade sanctions by themselves are a very uncertain deterrent to Jew-hating Islamist murderers who are determined to get nuclear weapons.
 
It been a Charade/Delay, Delay, Delay, for more than a DECADE.
The EU offered Free Off-site Enrichment to end the impasse in 2004.
A perfectly excellent deal for Iran IF they wanted just civilian use... without diversion of fissionable material to a weapons program.
It's all/100% BS "New govt", "Iran wants to talk", "moderate wing", since then.

The West is ABSOLUTELY allowing Iran to get the Bomb because we have no stomach for any more M-E wars.
It's also a 'Risk/Reward' situation, because even mere missile strikes would set the world economy/oil into chaos.
Sanctions have helped somewhat, tougher ones would at least get better terms from Iran. They would continue to cheat with secret facilities unless open/instant/inspections were granted. Not going to happen.
 
Last edited:
As though loosing the stomach for war is a negative. Spoken by a true blue war hawk!
 
donsutherland1 said:
From today's edition of The Washington Post:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/un-nuclear-watchdog-iran-not-providing-needed-information-access/2015/03/24/6557b24a-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

This is exactly why any agreement will need to have an intrusive and robust verification mechanism that runs beyond periodic inspections if it is to be credible. Iran's continuing failure to provide the IAEA with relevant information even as the diplomacy is approaching a critical deadline, raises serious potential compliance issues. My view remains unchanged concerning the looming deadline: if Iran fails to reach an agreement in principle with robust verification by the end of this month, Congress should reinstall the sanctions. That Iran continues to be evasive when it comes to the IAEA's requests for information and access argues that even if such sanctions cause Iran to walk away from the talks, those sanctions may offer the best prospect for limiting the risk of illicit Iranian nuclear arms-related activities.
Click to expand...

FEAR NOT!!!!!! The Iranians will absolutely be fully cooperative, transparent and honest with the Obama/Kerry Treaty, because they respect Obama as such a strong and competent leader who always enforces his decrees. Haven't you learned anything from president 'red-line' in Syria? Yemen? Libya?
 
Hiccups in a negotiation process? They must be making nuclear warheads!

Sound reasoning, yet again. :roll:
 
Montecresto said:
As though loosing the stomach for war is a negative. Spoken by a true blue war hawk!
Click to expand...

For people who favor policies that actually make war more likely to claim to love peace more those who believe the best way to prevent war has always been to be ready and willing to have it, if there is no alternative, is self-aggrandizing and phony.
 
Chainsaw said:
FEAR NOT!!!!!! The Iranians will absolutely be fully cooperative, transparent and honest with the Obama/Kerry Treaty, because they respect Obama as such a strong and competent leader who always enforces his decrees. Haven't you learned anything from president 'red-line' in Syria? Yemen? Libya?
Click to expand...

I had always considered the Liar-in-Chief a Red, but President Redline fits him perfectly!
 
donsutherland1 said:
From today's edition of The Washington Post:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/un-nuclear-watchdog-iran-not-providing-needed-information-access/2015/03/24/6557b24a-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

This is exactly why any agreement will need to have an intrusive and robust verification mechanism that runs beyond periodic inspections if it is to be credible. Iran's continuing failure to provide the IAEA with relevant information even as the diplomacy is approaching a critical deadline, raises serious potential compliance issues. My view remains unchanged concerning the looming deadline: if Iran fails to reach an agreement in principle with robust verification by the end of this month, Congress should reinstall the sanctions. That Iran continues to be evasive when it comes to the IAEA's requests for information and access argues that even if such sanctions cause Iran to walk away from the talks, those sanctions may offer the best prospect for limiting the risk of illicit Iranian nuclear arms-related activities.
Click to expand...



Standard playbook used by NK also: Stall, pretend to cooperate then stall, re-negotiate, flip out and throw everyone out of the country, re-negotiate, stall, pretend to comply, stall some more... eventually they have nukes.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From today's edition of The Washington Post:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/un-nuclear-watchdog-iran-not-providing-needed-information-access/2015/03/24/6557b24a-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html

This is exactly why any agreement will need to have an intrusive and robust verification mechanism that runs beyond periodic inspections if it is to be credible. Iran's continuing failure to provide the IAEA with relevant information even as the diplomacy is approaching a critical deadline, raises serious potential compliance issues. My view remains unchanged concerning the looming deadline: if Iran fails to reach an agreement in principle with robust verification by the end of this month, Congress should reinstall the sanctions. That Iran continues to be evasive when it comes to the IAEA's requests for information and access argues that even if such sanctions cause Iran to walk away from the talks, those sanctions may offer the best prospect for limiting the risk of illicit Iranian nuclear arms-related activities.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like Iran wants something. They always do. I'm for a media blast ala Radio Free Europe to appeal the general populace who don't think we're bad at all and have an interest in joining the modern generation.
 
matchlight said:
For people who favor policies that actually make war more likely to claim to love peace more those who believe the best way to prevent war has always been to be ready and willing to have it, if there is no alternative, is self-aggrandizing and phony.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. It's the opposition to wars of choice when unnecessary. Of late, Iraq would be the greatest example.
 
From The New York Times:

With a negotiating deadline just two days away, Iranian officials on Sunday backed away from a critical element of a proposed nuclear agreement, saying they are no longer willing to ship their atomic fuel out of the country...

If the fuel had been shipped to Russia, the plan called for Moscow to convert it into specialized fuel rods for the Bushehr nuclear power plant, Iran’s only commercial reactor. Once it was converted into fuel rods, it would have been extremely difficult for Iran to use the material to make a nuclear weapon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/w...cks-away-from-key-detail-in-nuclear-deal.html

If, in fact, this is Iran's position, it is abundantly clear that Iran does not wish to reach a reasonable accommodation. Instead, it seeks to retain enriched fuel and rejects a solution that would provide it fuel rods for a civil nuclear energy program, as such an approach would limit the risk of weaponization.
 
matchlight said:
I don't accept that it was a "war of choice" or "unnecessary."
Click to expand...

And I'm sure that you don't accept that the world is round. You're not alone, you have wee company, nevertheless, it was confirmed a few centuries ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom